Venous access devices are of pivotal importance for an increasing number of critically ill patients in a variety of disease states and in a variety of clinical settings(emergency, intensive care, surgery) and for diff...Venous access devices are of pivotal importance for an increasing number of critically ill patients in a variety of disease states and in a variety of clinical settings(emergency, intensive care, surgery) and for different purposes(fluids or drugs infusions, parenteral nutrition, antibiotic therapy, hemodynamic monitoring, procedures of dialysis/apheresis). However, healthcare professionals are commonly worried about the possible consequences that may result using a central venous access device(CVAD)(mainly, bloodstream infections and thrombosis), both peripherally inserted central catheters(PICCs) and centrally inserted central catheters(CICCs). This review aims to discuss indications, insertion techniques, and care of PICCs in critically ill patients. PICCs have many advantages over standard CICCs. First of all, their insertion is easy and safe-due to their placement into peripheral veins of the armand the advantage of a central location of catheter tip suitable for all osmolarity and p H solutions. Using the ultrasound-guidance for the PICC insertion, the risk of hemothorax and pneumothorax can be avoided, as wellas the possibility of primary malposition is very low. PICC placement is also appropriate to avoid post-procedural hemorrhage in patients with an abnormal coagulative state who need a CVAD. Some limits previously ascribed to PICCs(i.e., low flow rates, difficult central venous pressure monitoring, lack of safety for radio-diagnostic procedures, single-lumen) have delayed their start up in the intensive care units as common practice. Though, the recent development of power-injectable PICCs overcomes these technical limitations and PICCs have started to spread in critical care settings. Two important take-home messages may be drawn from this review. First, the incidence of complications varies depending on venous accesses and healthcare professionals should be aware of the different clinical performance as well as of the different risks associated with each type of CVAD(CICCs or PICCs). Second, an inappropriate CVAD choice and, particularly, an inadequate insertion technique are relevant-and often not recognized-potential risk factors for complications in critically ill patients. We strongly believe that all healthcare professionals involved in the choice, insertion or management of CVADs in critically ill patients should know all potential risk factors of complications. This knowledge may minimize complications and guarantee longevity to the CVAD optimizing the risk/benefit ratio of CVAD insertion and use. Proper management of CVADs in critical care saves lines and lives. Much evidence from the medical literature and from the clinical practice supports our belief that, compared to CICCs, the so-called power-injectable peripherally inserted central catheters are a good alternative choice in critical care.展开更多
Aims: To audit the use and outcomes of using PICC lines in hemato-oncological patients. Objectives: To study the demographics of patients: ?studying the use of PICC line in hemato-oncological patients;studying the rat...Aims: To audit the use and outcomes of using PICC lines in hemato-oncological patients. Objectives: To study the demographics of patients: ?studying the use of PICC line in hemato-oncological patients;studying the rate of complications in PICC line;studying the cause of early removal of PICC line. Methods: All PICCs inserted in adult hemato-oncological patients in Hematology and Medical Oncology Department of Health Care Global (HCG) Hospital were studied prospectively, as per the proforma, till PICCs were removed or patient expired and the pattern of complications were noted. Results: Eighty-four PICCs were inserted over a period of initial nine months and followed for a total of 1 year with three months post insertion duration for a total of 10,868 catheter-days (mean of 129 days i.e. 4.3 months, range: 1 to 288 days). The most common indication for PICC was chemotherapy (100%). Among them 19 (22%) PICCs had complications and 12 were removed at the rate of 1.1/1000 PICC-days. Complications with haematologic malignancies were more as compared to those with solid tissue malignancies. Conclusions: Despite significant complication rates, PICCs are a relatively safe and cost effective mode of establishing central venous access.展开更多
Subclavian artery (SCA) injuries associated with central venous catheter (CVC) insertion are uncommon yet lethal complications that typically require surgical treatment. This case report presents the case of a 94...Subclavian artery (SCA) injuries associated with central venous catheter (CVC) insertion are uncommon yet lethal complications that typically require surgical treatment. This case report presents the case of a 94-year-old man with an iatrogenic right SCA injury resulting from a misplaced CVC. Computed tomography revealed the catheter piercing the right internal jugular vein to enter the right SCA and then reaching the aortic arch. Emergent endovascular treatment was performed, and a 13-mm × 50-mm self-expanding Viabahn stent graft (W.L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, AZ, USA) was placed via the right brachial artery. The misplaced catheter was successfully removed under simultaneous postdeployment balloon dilatation. This case highlights the utility of the Viabahn stent graft for iatrogenic right SCA injury caused by a misplaced CVC and presents some insights and tips for a safer procedure.展开更多
目的系统评价新生儿经外周置入中心静脉导管(PICC)相关性血栓的发生率。方法计算机检索Medline、Embase、Web of Science、CINAHL、中国生物医学文献数据库、中国期刊全文数据库、维普中文科技期刊数据库和万方数据库中与新生儿PICC相...目的系统评价新生儿经外周置入中心静脉导管(PICC)相关性血栓的发生率。方法计算机检索Medline、Embase、Web of Science、CINAHL、中国生物医学文献数据库、中国期刊全文数据库、维普中文科技期刊数据库和万方数据库中与新生儿PICC相关性血栓发生率相关的研究,检索时限为建库至2022年5月17日。双人进行筛选、质量评价后,采用Stata 16.0软件进行Meta分析。结果共纳入5项研究,总样本量为4573例,其中共发生104例PICC相关性血栓。Meta分析结果显示新生儿PICC相关性血栓的发生率为1.7%(95%置信区间:0.5%~3.6%)。亚组分析结果显示,发表年份为2017—2021年的文献、经下肢静脉置管的新生儿PICC相关性血栓的发生率更高。结论新生儿PICC相关性血栓的发生率为1.68%。经下肢静脉置管时,血栓的发生率更高,因此对于凝血功能障碍、血栓发生风险高的新生儿,应尽量避免选择经下肢静脉置管。展开更多
文摘Venous access devices are of pivotal importance for an increasing number of critically ill patients in a variety of disease states and in a variety of clinical settings(emergency, intensive care, surgery) and for different purposes(fluids or drugs infusions, parenteral nutrition, antibiotic therapy, hemodynamic monitoring, procedures of dialysis/apheresis). However, healthcare professionals are commonly worried about the possible consequences that may result using a central venous access device(CVAD)(mainly, bloodstream infections and thrombosis), both peripherally inserted central catheters(PICCs) and centrally inserted central catheters(CICCs). This review aims to discuss indications, insertion techniques, and care of PICCs in critically ill patients. PICCs have many advantages over standard CICCs. First of all, their insertion is easy and safe-due to their placement into peripheral veins of the armand the advantage of a central location of catheter tip suitable for all osmolarity and p H solutions. Using the ultrasound-guidance for the PICC insertion, the risk of hemothorax and pneumothorax can be avoided, as wellas the possibility of primary malposition is very low. PICC placement is also appropriate to avoid post-procedural hemorrhage in patients with an abnormal coagulative state who need a CVAD. Some limits previously ascribed to PICCs(i.e., low flow rates, difficult central venous pressure monitoring, lack of safety for radio-diagnostic procedures, single-lumen) have delayed their start up in the intensive care units as common practice. Though, the recent development of power-injectable PICCs overcomes these technical limitations and PICCs have started to spread in critical care settings. Two important take-home messages may be drawn from this review. First, the incidence of complications varies depending on venous accesses and healthcare professionals should be aware of the different clinical performance as well as of the different risks associated with each type of CVAD(CICCs or PICCs). Second, an inappropriate CVAD choice and, particularly, an inadequate insertion technique are relevant-and often not recognized-potential risk factors for complications in critically ill patients. We strongly believe that all healthcare professionals involved in the choice, insertion or management of CVADs in critically ill patients should know all potential risk factors of complications. This knowledge may minimize complications and guarantee longevity to the CVAD optimizing the risk/benefit ratio of CVAD insertion and use. Proper management of CVADs in critical care saves lines and lives. Much evidence from the medical literature and from the clinical practice supports our belief that, compared to CICCs, the so-called power-injectable peripherally inserted central catheters are a good alternative choice in critical care.
文摘Aims: To audit the use and outcomes of using PICC lines in hemato-oncological patients. Objectives: To study the demographics of patients: ?studying the use of PICC line in hemato-oncological patients;studying the rate of complications in PICC line;studying the cause of early removal of PICC line. Methods: All PICCs inserted in adult hemato-oncological patients in Hematology and Medical Oncology Department of Health Care Global (HCG) Hospital were studied prospectively, as per the proforma, till PICCs were removed or patient expired and the pattern of complications were noted. Results: Eighty-four PICCs were inserted over a period of initial nine months and followed for a total of 1 year with three months post insertion duration for a total of 10,868 catheter-days (mean of 129 days i.e. 4.3 months, range: 1 to 288 days). The most common indication for PICC was chemotherapy (100%). Among them 19 (22%) PICCs had complications and 12 were removed at the rate of 1.1/1000 PICC-days. Complications with haematologic malignancies were more as compared to those with solid tissue malignancies. Conclusions: Despite significant complication rates, PICCs are a relatively safe and cost effective mode of establishing central venous access.
文摘Subclavian artery (SCA) injuries associated with central venous catheter (CVC) insertion are uncommon yet lethal complications that typically require surgical treatment. This case report presents the case of a 94-year-old man with an iatrogenic right SCA injury resulting from a misplaced CVC. Computed tomography revealed the catheter piercing the right internal jugular vein to enter the right SCA and then reaching the aortic arch. Emergent endovascular treatment was performed, and a 13-mm × 50-mm self-expanding Viabahn stent graft (W.L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, AZ, USA) was placed via the right brachial artery. The misplaced catheter was successfully removed under simultaneous postdeployment balloon dilatation. This case highlights the utility of the Viabahn stent graft for iatrogenic right SCA injury caused by a misplaced CVC and presents some insights and tips for a safer procedure.
文摘目的系统评价新生儿经外周置入中心静脉导管(PICC)相关性血栓的发生率。方法计算机检索Medline、Embase、Web of Science、CINAHL、中国生物医学文献数据库、中国期刊全文数据库、维普中文科技期刊数据库和万方数据库中与新生儿PICC相关性血栓发生率相关的研究,检索时限为建库至2022年5月17日。双人进行筛选、质量评价后,采用Stata 16.0软件进行Meta分析。结果共纳入5项研究,总样本量为4573例,其中共发生104例PICC相关性血栓。Meta分析结果显示新生儿PICC相关性血栓的发生率为1.7%(95%置信区间:0.5%~3.6%)。亚组分析结果显示,发表年份为2017—2021年的文献、经下肢静脉置管的新生儿PICC相关性血栓的发生率更高。结论新生儿PICC相关性血栓的发生率为1.68%。经下肢静脉置管时,血栓的发生率更高,因此对于凝血功能障碍、血栓发生风险高的新生儿,应尽量避免选择经下肢静脉置管。
